This is a follow up to my earlier post where I will try to take forward the debate about the ideological framework of a future conservative movement. There, some objections were raised in the comments section which I will attempt to address here.

Sidd@ma_falesu is right that the word “traditionalist” is a misnomer because the Sangh cannot be said to be truly traditionalist. I concede the point: it was used for lack of a better way to describe folks who are generally uncomfortable with social change and the liberal paradigm.

His second contention was that the Sangh has always been inclined towards socialism. My own view is that the Sangh has not had a consistent economic perspective. It has adopted various themes from the nationalist discourse at different points of time but has not evolved any of them into a unique and comprehensive theme. Also, it has allowed pragmatic considerations to guide economic policy whenever the party it supported came to power rather than insist on having its way. It has argued for indigenization but has not seriously tried to insist on boycotting all foreign goods or banning imports. A major concern of the Sangh is the interest of the Hindu samaj and if there are alternative ways to promote it (as I will attempt to put forth in later posts), I do not think they will necessarily be averse to the idea.

I will not go into the issue of secularism here (which has to be dealt with separately altogether) but regarding his last point, times have changed considerably and the libertarian movement may well become a force to reckon with in the years to come. As for property rights, we have come at least half a circle – from loss of the right to property in the 44th amendment to the present push to amend the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 to restrict eminent domain. How strong an ally libertarians will make for Hindu nationalists has to be seen relative to their proximity to left liberals which is not something they are comfortable with either. In contrast to the Left which already has worked out its positions on most issues that matter to libertarians, the agenda of the Right is still a work in progress which leaves room for flexibility. Assuming they will be a force to reckon with in the future and given the uniqueness of their perspective, they can make a meaningful contribution to the movement. The objective is not to hunt for the strongest available allies of a particular group but to create an alternative paradigm that is sufficiently broad based to be able to accommodate multiple schools of thought within its umbrella. I do not dispute that the final product must be a homemade brew but we can surely borrow some ingredients from others who have successfully prepared their own recipes.

Amar@amargov argues that traditionalists must affirm their commitment to social transformation. This is a contradiction in terms – traditionalists are called so because they do not want transformation; if they accepted change, they would no longer qualify for the label. He argues that social reform measures ought to be embraced even if they are western values and social realities cannot lead us away from the genuine need for reform. Read on for my explanation.

Societies inevitably change over time. A basic conservative value is not that change can be prevented but a healthy skepticism is necesssary in dealing with claims that it will necessarily lead, in totality, to a better future. “Progress” can sometimes simply be a euphemism for exchanging one set of problems with another. Hence, the issue is not whether change itself is or is not desirable but what the role of the state in that process is or ought to be.

The government establishment and the left have long aimed at a top-down approach where state institutions are first “captured” and certain measures involving mostly coercion but occasionally accompanied by tax-payer funded incentives – are adopted which are then passed down the hierarchy and thrust upon the populace to varying degrees – depending on how serious implementation efforts are, how much funding is available, how difficult the problem is, etc. Two pertinent questions would be whether (a) these state sponsored efforts actually lead to or hasten the desired transformation and (b) the loss of individual freedom that state coercion entails and the socio-economic cost of the effort makes it worthwhile. There is generally little evidence to support a positive response to the first question which means that a conservative would likely answer the second with a no. I can cite many social laws in support of this. I quote from an earlier post:

For example, the Child Marriage Restraint Act, 1978 has not had much impact on child marriages, the PNDT Act, 1994 with all its subsequent amendments has not had much success with ending female feticide, kidney rackets continue notwithstanding the Human Organ Transplantation Act, 1994 and commercial sex thrives despite the Immoral Traffic Act, 1956. All of these [laws] impinge on important [individual] concerns – the freedom to marry, reproduce, prolong one’s life, seek sexual gratification, the right to privacy in matters of one’s own health care and reproductive choices, etc… The main result of the threat of legal action has not been to abolish these acts but to drive them and the associated actors underground.

Given this reality, on balance, how much of a justification exists to keep any of these and other such laws on the books or to come up with similar ones in the future? Amar argues that a legislation cannot be insulated against the possibility of unintended consequences. True enough but all law making involves cost-benefit appraisals and it is difficult to support such legislation howsoever noble the intent. As well all know, it is the very same argument being made with respect to the Jan Lokpal and Communal violence bills too – It cannot be anyone’s case that corruption should not be tackled or that minorities should not be protected against violence. Society has no way of guarding against such abuse nor can the traditionalist ‘improve’ it for it is often directed against him/her and any attempts to change it will invite suspicion of the powers that be together with the charge of attempting to dilute it.

In future posts, I hope to explore ways to fuse multiple strands of thought on the Right on particular issues into a common narrative. Meanwhile, it would help if someone could enlighten me where the “liberal nationalists” stand with respect to the state’s role in social matters.

Related posts

It is good to see a churning of ideas happening in the right of center space here in India. I must say that while we hi-lite the points of disagreement and conflict among the Conservatives and Liberal Nationalists, we must not lose sight of the many points of agreement. The term Conservatives itself might be more acceptable to the traditionalists and might not be to the Lib-nationalists. Center-right, in my opinion, is hence the right label to accommodate these various voices.

Center-right movement is in a nascent stage of development and a key goal must be to attract as many supporters, listeners as possible. In India, the biggest such constituency can be grouped under the anti-Congress category. This group is very diverse and still not well understood. Strictly defined principles might always satisfy the current followers but run the risk of excluding those who would otherwise be possible members. Given our ( or may be just me) lack of understanding about ourselves and the diversity of opinions in India, propounding principles that would solve the problems of today is a genuinely hard task. Flexible principles with some amount of ambiguity and diversity might be the way to go forward.

Robust nationalism, individual rights,push for reforms etc are the points of agreement. What remains to be discussed is the role of state in bringing about reforms also at some point I see the individual Vs family debate emerging. On other issues of Economic and Foreign policy, this broad framework of values coupled with pragmatism must be acceptable to all. Pragmatism of different groups / individuals might not converge at all times, that too must be factored in.

Dilip Rao

Manohar,
Agree that there are differences over terminology (see @ma_falesu’s comment as well) but Center Right can only refer to the broader umbrella. We still need terms for particular lines of thinking within it. Other issues such as individual v. family should also be debated at some point especially given the dangerous laws being proposed in the name of women’s rights that could sow discord and seriously undermine family cohesion. Pragmatism will be necessary to navigate through the different shades of opinion but any movement ought to expect a combination of principle and pragmatism.

http://twitter.com/ma_falesu Siddhartha Chatterje

Dilip,
Thanks for coming back and making a few clarifications.
Since we often tend to be anti-left (to be honest, my interest in rightist movement stems from anti-left bias) I find nothing wrong with the term “right” although term arrives from leftist framework of vilifying their opponent. It is the word “conservative” that I do not agree with.
The real joke about Indian “progressives” is that they always want the same old status quo, same static policies, same system that makes their cronies rich at the expense of the poor and they also want “progressive”/pro-poor tag. If you want to protest them you are supposed to be a “conservative”. If you want to accept this term, step back and think. We are not trying to build a movement by taking old socialist generation. We are trying to capture mind-share of new generation. To them a status-quoist left and crony-socialism is the tradition, those who want to preserve it will be called conservatives. To protest them and then calling this conservative movement would be to confuse them.
I have always said this and I am saying it now, we need a nationalist country-first movement not some un-tested or failed ideology. For this, we need to grow our own set of answers to the present hot-button issues. If we are hoping that we will be taken seriously, we need to concentrate on these.

Dilip Rao

Siddhartha,

You make a valid point about the connotation of the word ‘conservative’ but also remember that not all political changes have necessarily won social acceptance. In some prominent respects, political changes remain just top dressing which have found little resonance within society. I am however open to the idea of alternative terminology.
Nationalism and country-first are more catchy slogans than an ideology. Also, it should not become unduly parochial and restrictive especially now in the era of the global village, common challenges and similar opposition movements which tend to be well networked. Dinesh D’souza was onto something when he was talking of affinities among global conservative movements. That may be an idea worth exploring. The transnational spread of ideas is what has given the human rights movement and its progeny such enormous reach everywhere.

http://centreright.in Amar

Hi Dilip. Sorry have been away for a while – will read and respond in a day or two.

Dilip Rao

Look forward to it.

Anonymous

In my opinion a broad based Conservative opinion can come from a Traditionalist perspective. In our country such a perspective will in reality be localized and suited to local communities.

However, even to achieve this minimum in our polity has become a challenge because of the opportunism of not merely the political class but also of the elite. The political class’ priority is to win and retain power. The elite’s priority is to push its fashionable liberal ideas while remaining influential. Here the twains meet since liberalism holds strong sway over our politics. Complicated? Not really.

Two factors aide the longevity of this situation –

The political class sees advantage in catering to segments of Hindu society and some minorities whilst pitting all these segments against one another and additionally creating a pull mechanism whereby selected segments form themselves into lobbies to garner social benefits via vote banks.

The elite views this political process positively because it sees some wrongs being righted while keeping the tyrannical majority on a tight leash and dare I say, divided against itself. Of course blow-backs in the form of research grants, advertisement revenue, assorted ego boosters etc are mouth watering carrots.

This, in short, is how political opportunism wears an idealistic garb. In the above political class, I include the so called Conservative parties.

The way to break through this log-jam is to show an equally viable alternative. Traditionalize or socially localize politics. Instead of trying to distribute cake, why not allow each kitchen to bake its own in a single large bakery?

The main issue is the lack of socially rooted political representation for each segment of the National Society and minorities. This political representation cannot be achieved in Hindusthan without a Traditionalist framework.

– Namaste

Dilip Rao

Interesting. Agree that we need a more localized, community based approach to promote real grass roots democracy. But you need to recognize that organization and political power at the state and central levels are necessary to achieve that – which ought to be the imperative that drives the conservative movement. To take your analogy, all the people who want to bake their own cakes in their own kitchens need to band together and force the government to grant them that right or else, those who want to bake it in Delhi and ship it everywhere will prevail.

I suppose there are lots of reasons why the system does not favor this sort of arrangement. Appeasement of the sort you talk about is more a consequence of the system than a cause of it. At the heart of it, you need to look at the political economy and the forces that shape it. Every society has a section pushing for change and this is big business nowadays – social entrepreneurs and the media both stand to gain from it. Political patronage networks require resources that again are directly associated with economies of scale which creates a tendency towards centralization. The answer has to come from similar networking of organizations which can channel the interests of the disaffected groups. In the US for example, this is being done through the Family Research Council and others. An Indian version cannot be a replica of it but must take its inspiration from our values and beliefs and respond to challenges unique to our own context.